X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.103] (HELO ms-smtp-04-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c1) with ESMTP id 681355 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:13:18 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.103; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-065-188-083-049.carolina.res.rr.com [65.188.83.49]) by ms-smtp-04-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id j7PCCU1v028120 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:12:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001901c5a96e$48dc48e0$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Flamible brake fluid Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:12:38 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016_01C5A94C.C193BA60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C5A94C.C193BA60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, certainly makes you wonder why it is even allowed. In my research, = a case was made that because the 5606 is an FAA approved "Standard" that = similar to many other aircraft parts - any change by industry would be = seen (by lawyers) as admission of a defect in the "older stuff . = Apparently the FAA attitude is as long as the fluid stays in the system = there is little chance for ignition {:>). However, given the = alternatives that now exists it seems almost criminal that the 5606 is = even permitted to be sold. Regarding auto brake fluid - there has been some cases in the past = (where inappropriate seal material was involved) that the use of auto = brake fluid in an aircraft brake system caused problems. Not certain = that is the case anymore with the synthetic materials used in most = seals. I just ordered a gallon of the MIL-h83282 for $18.00. It will certainly = cost me more to replace the one wheel pant {:>) Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: WRJJRS@aol.com=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:27 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Flamible brake fluid In a message dated 8/24/2005 10:23:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, = WRJJRS@aol.com writes: In a message dated 8/24/2005 6:32:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, = eanderson@carolina.rr.com writes: The more I research, the more brake fires I come across occurring = in experimental aircraft. However, it turns out the standard brake = fluid is widely used throughout general aviation as well as airlines - = this is the standard 5606 series. The flash point has ranged from 187F = to 240F as some improvements in flash point was made with each new = formula up through Mil-P-5606H. Attached in PDF format is a concise article from EAA chapter 493 = about an RV-8 brake fire and the crucial difference between the old = standard and the new brake fluid Mil-H-83282. The new brake fluid is = compatible in every way with the standard - but has a flash point around = 400F - almost twice that of our standard brake fluid. It turns out the = standard brake fluid has been responsible for airliner crashes, GA = crashes as well as numerous fires. =20 Your brakes are hot enough even with moderate braking to immediate = ignite the standard brake fluid - if you have any kind of leak and the = fluid contacts the brake pads or rotor - its quite possible you will = find your aircraft on fire as I did. Naturally I strongly recommend a change to the H-83282 as soon as = practical - like no later than your next annual/conditional inspection = if not sooner. Me I'm doing it sooner. Ed Ed,=20 I have checked with several manufacturers who say their stuff is = compatible with automotive fluids. I have no idea why we would put up = with the flammable aircraft stuff. Besides DOT 4 silicone fluid which = has the advantage of not harming paint, I have been using various = synthetics in my race bikes for years which are good to better than = 600=B0F! I have heard some older auto fluids are corrosive to aluminum = but with the number of aluminum components on modern cars it MUST be = less common. I have had all sorts of ALUMINUM BRAKE PARTS including = master cylinders on my bikes and never seen ANY problem. The aircraft = fluid is simply stupid when compared to modern auto fluids. Sorry, forgot to sign Bill Jepson ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C5A94C.C193BA60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes, certainly makes you wonder why it is even = allowed. =20 In my research, a case was made that because the 5606 is an FAA approved = "Standard" that similar to many other aircraft parts - any change by = industry=20 would be seen (by lawyers) as admission of a defect in the "older stuff = . =20 Apparently the FAA attitude is as long as the fluid stays in the system = there is=20 little chance for ignition {:>).  However, given the = alternatives that=20 now exists it seems almost criminal that the 5606 is even permitted to = be=20 sold.
 
Regarding auto brake fluid - there has been some = cases in the=20 past (where inappropriate seal material was involved) that the use of = auto brake=20 fluid in an aircraft brake system caused problems.  Not certain = that is the=20 case anymore with the synthetic materials used in most = seals.
 
I just ordered a gallon of the MIL-h83282 for = $18.00.  It=20 will certainly cost me more to replace the one wheel pant = {:>)
 
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 WRJJRS@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 = 1:27=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Flamible brake=20 fluid

In a message dated 8/24/2005 10:23:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, = WRJJRS@aol.com writes:
In a message dated 8/24/2005 6:32:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, = eanderson@carolina.rr.com=20 writes:
The more I research, the more brake fires = I come=20 across occurring in experimental aircraft.  However, it turns = out the=20 standard brake fluid is widely used throughout general aviation as = well as=20 airlines - this is the standard 5606 series.  The flash point = has=20 ranged from 187F to 240F as some improvements in flash point was = made with=20 each new formula up through Mil-P-5606H.
 
Attached in PDF format is a concise = article from EAA=20 chapter 493 about an RV-8 brake fire and the crucial difference = between=20 the old standard and the new brake fluid Mil-H-83282.  The = new brake=20 fluid is compatible in every way with the standard - but has a = flash point=20 around 400F - almost twice that of our standard brake fluid.  = It=20 turns out the standard brake fluid has been responsible for = airliner=20 crashes, GA crashes as well as numerous fires. 
 
Your brakes are hot enough even with = moderate=20 braking to immediate ignite the standard brake fluid - if you have = any=20 kind of leak and the fluid contacts the brake pads = or rotor=20 - its quite possible you will find your aircraft on fire as I=20 did.
 
Naturally I strongly recommend a change to = the=20 H-83282 as soon as practical - like no later than your next=20 annual/conditional inspection if not sooner.  Me I'm doing it = sooner.
 
Ed
 
Ed,
I have checked with several manufacturers who say their stuff = is=20 compatible with automotive fluids. I have no idea why we would put = up with=20 the flammable aircraft stuff. Besides DOT 4 silicone fluid which has = the=20 advantage of not harming paint, I have been using various synthetics = in my=20 race bikes for years which are good to better than 600=B0F! I have = heard some=20 older auto fluids are corrosive to aluminum but with the number of = aluminum=20 components on modern cars it MUST be less common. I have had all = sorts of=20 ALUMINUM BRAKE PARTS including master cylinders on my bikes and = never seen=20 ANY problem. The aircraft fluid is simply stupid when compared to = modern=20 auto fluids.
Sorry, forgot to sign
Bill Jepson
------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C5A94C.C193BA60--